On Thursday 12. March 2015 02.12, Pamela Chestek wrote:
But that's the acceptance by breaking the wrapper, not just by virtue of
being printed.
I remember in Norway where I live, it was common in the 1990s to have wrapped
software CDs with a seal that said something to the effect of «by
On 3/10/2015 12:55 PM, co...@ccil.org wrote:
Fortunately, books are also sold --
at least so far, though nothing stops book publishers from putting
the same sort of notice into each copy of a book and gutting the
used-book market.
A Supreme Court case does:
The precise question, therefore,
Hello,
One may wonder what is the big deal with this single phrase in LGPL. It
basically states something fairly similar with EU software directive:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32009L0024
Please see art. 6, Decompilation:
The authorisation of the rightholder shall
the licensor to the
licensee. Sublicensing not involved.
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: co...@ccil.org [mailto:co...@ccil.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 10:58 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
Pamela
to copyrighted articles!
Lawrence Rosen
If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill.
-Original Message-
From: Pamela Chestek [mailto:pam...@chesteklegal.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 2:34 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Reverse
On 3/11/2015 1:58 PM, co...@ccil.org wrote:
I think the Supremes would consider that case irrelevant today if they
had the opportunity to overrule it, because it depends on the
exclusive right to vend that is conferred in the 1831 Act and in the 1909
Act, but not present in the 1976 Act.
Quite
Pamela Chestek quotavit:
In our view the copyright statutes, while protecting the owner of the
copyright in his right to multiply and sell his production, do not
create the right to impose, by notice, such as is disclosed in this
case, a limitation at which the book shall be sold at retail by
Pamela Chestek scripsit:
Do you have an example where paying for a tangible article has been
construed by a court as contractual acceptance of a restrictive term
printed on it?
Isn't boxed software a tangible article? If the box doesn't count, the
CD/DVD surely does.
--
John Cowan
But that's the acceptance by breaking the wrapper, not just by virtue of being
printed. And the printed for promotional use on cds was held not an
enforceable license.
Pam
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device
-- Original message--
From: John Cowan
Date: Wed, Mar 11, 2015 8:53 PM
To:
Smith, McCoy scripsit:
The conditional sale cases under the patent law (of which there
are but a few, the Mallinckrodt case being the most notable:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mallinckrodt,_Inc._v._Medipart,_Inc. )
might be an example, although I don't recall if there was
any sort of true
On 3/11/2015 5:48 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
DANGER: Poison inside!
I would go with assumption of risk on that one. :-)
Pam
Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
919-800-8033
pam...@chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com
Board Certified by the NC State Bar's
Board of
On 11/03/2015 01:07, John Cowan wrote:
No, of course not. But when I buy the book, the first-sale right is
exhausted; when I buy proprietary software, it is not, and I have no
right to resell. The difference is that the book is purchased
whereas the proprietary software is only licensed.
Of Pamela Chestek
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 2:34 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
On 3/11/2015 1:58 PM, co...@ccil.org wrote:
I think the Supremes would consider that case irrelevant today if they
had the opportunity
On 2015-03-08 01:33 PM, John Cowan wrote:
Frankly, I have zero sympathy for Baystate's behavior. Bowers offered to
license his technology on commercial terms, and they told him they thought
they could do it themselves. They then licensed a copy of his work,
accepting in the process the
David Woolley scripsit:
You can buy a book (i.e. hardware consisting of paper and ink), but
you can't buy the novel that it contains (the author will not assign
copyright to you).
No, of course not. But when I buy the book, the first-sale right is
exhausted; when I buy proprietary software,
Thufir Hawat scripsit:
Does the same logic apply to widgets? If so, that would, potentially,
kill after-market car parts, which, if I'm not mistaken, are reverse
engineered from the original.
Cars and their parts are sold, not licensed. If purchasers of
proprietary software would insist on
Johnny A. Solbu scripsit:
Then you are mistaken. The copy was licenced, not sold. If you did
buy it, then it would become your property, and no longer Redhat's
property.
That copy was my property and not Red Hat's. They were of course free
to make other copies, as was I. Similarly, when I
David Woolley scripsit:
You didn't buy the software. You bought a piece of hardware with a
single copy.
By that definition, I don't buy books either, but that turns out not to
be the case.
Red Hat don't even have the right to sell most of Linux as people like
the FSF own it.
The FSF
On 10/03/15 23:53, John Cowan wrote:
You didn't buy the software. You bought a piece of hardware with a
single copy.
By that definition, I don't buy books either, but that turns out not to
be the case.
You can buy a book (i.e. hardware consisting of paper and ink), but you
can't buy the
On Tuesday 10. March 2015 17.55, co...@ccil.org wrote:
I think I've bought software exactly once, a boxed set of
Red Hat Linux back in 1999. All the rest has been licensed under
either a proprietary or an open-source license.
Then you are mistaken. The copy was licenced, not sold. If you did
thufir scripsit:
I don't think it's necessary to write a PDF about it, but, still,
interesting. IMHO this is bad policy, a bad law, but there you are.
Did this change at one point? I thought that reverse engineering
was found to be legal, at least in the US? And this Bowers v
Baystate set
On 2015-03-07 08:03 AM, John Cowan wrote:
thufir scripsit:
Please consider carefully your usage of requires versus allows. I
think the language barrier isn't helping, but I see now where you're
coming from, or at least what your concern is. Again, what is the
mechanism by which
[top-posting by way of preamble, apologies to others receiving this:
thufir is someone whom i have interacted with in the past without
achieving successful rational communication, on the gpl-violations
mailing list]
ah, thufir, after a long time, you initiate a discussion (directly to
me) for
On 2015-03-06 07:14 PM, thufir wrote:
i assume also, thufir, that you have read, understood, and agree that
if 77 highly intelligent and prominent computer scientists - many of
them having NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GPL - go to the extraordinary
lengths of submitting an amicus brief against the
On 2015-03-04 07:16 AM, Reincke, Karsten wrote:
Now, I am indeed sure that all important open source licenses
including the LGPL-v2 allow reverse engineering only in case of
distributing statically linked programs. Moreover: I am definitely
sure, that none of these open source licenses
On 2015-03-06 05:30 PM, lkcl . wrote:
i assume also, thufir, that you have read, understood, and agree that
if 77 highly intelligent and prominent computer scientists - many of
them having NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GPL - go to the extraordinary
lengths of submitting an amicus brief against the
On 2015-03-06 05:30 PM, lkcl . wrote:
So, that's the point. You might write what you like about the GPL and
reverse engineering, but the foundation behind the GPL has opened the door
on this.
no it has not. from previous experience, you have a habit of being
unable to discern between
I don't get it, the pdf is at odds with Dr. Stallman and the FSF, if not
in specifics, at least in results and effects. The FSF, to the extent I
was able to get an official position from it, is all in favor of taking
GPL'ed API's, copying the declaring code, re-writing the implementation,
and
On 2015-03-06 03:30 PM, thufir wrote:
For example, my capable colleague Helene Tamer constantly insisted, that
Deutsche Telekom AG could not give up her restrictions to use LGPL
libraries until
I had offered a reliable proof that the LGPL does not require reverse
engineering.
Admittedly, I
03:51
An: License Discuss
Cc: ftf-le...@fsfeurope.org; karen.copenha...@gmail.com;
arm...@tjaldur.nl; Wiedemann, Claus-Peter; Schwegler, Robert
Betreff: Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
[...]
The intended interpretation of the drafters is made clear at
https
Sorry, but this is a ridiculously heavyweight way of thinking about
things. The problem with thinking in a heavyweight fashion is that it
is easy to lose track of what is going on, and hard for anyone else to
wade through it and point out the error. However I'll try.
On page 6 you are arguing
] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
[...]
The intended interpretation of the drafters is made clear at
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic. They
distinguish by how the software is distributed. If you distribute code that
dynamically links to an LGPL library
On 04/03/15 15:16, Reincke, Karsten wrote:
In the past I was involved in some full discussions concerning the issue
‘reverse engineering and open source licenses’. Although personally
esteeming and inspiring, such discussions sometimes became a bit
explosive: If – at least – the LGPL-v2 indeed
33 matches
Mail list logo
